A discussion this community needs to have.

[JohnLee]

That's incorrect. I hope you realize there is a principle called diminishing returns.

The difference between an SSD and NVMe with latency and IOPS is huge, but the benefit of the two in game servers, including minecraft, is minimal. They are not that I/O intensive. The result is a overpriced overpowered NVMe SSD being sold because it sounds better. The difference in a real-world scenario is marginal and realistically would not be needed unless you have several hundred servers on a single node.

In other words: A typical SSD is just as good as a NVMe drive. You can have a SSD RAID 50 setup for the same price as a RAID 1 NVMe setup.

Please don't take one persons incorrect opinion on something you yourself haven't done adequate research on.[DOUBLEPOST=1522100513][/DOUBLEPOST]As an FYI, the workload of running a shared minecraft server and a desktop and using a drive for those servers and as a boot drive are totally different in themselves...that's not a fair benchmark by any means.

Not sure what world you live in where RAID 50 is a good idea in the slightest - but I get your point.

 

[rexs123]

That's incorrect. I hope you realize there is a principle called diminishing returns.

The difference between an SSD and NVMe with latency and IOPS is huge, but the benefit of the two in game servers, including minecraft, is minimal. They are not that I/O intensive. The result is a overpriced overpowered NVMe SSD being sold because it sounds better. The difference in a real-world scenario is marginal and realistically would not be needed unless you have several hundred servers on a single node.

In other words: A typical SSD is just as good as a NVMe drive. You can have a SSD RAID 50 setup for the same price as a RAID 1 NVMe setup.

Please don't take one persons incorrect opinion on something you yourself haven't done adequate research on.[DOUBLEPOST=1522100513][/DOUBLEPOST]As an FYI, the workload of running a shared minecraft server and a desktop and using a drive for those servers and as a boot drive are totally different in themselves...that's not a fair benchmark by any means.

You do understand they'd make a massive difference in a SHARED environment. Where reads and writes are SHARED across MULTIPLE services. Having the extra throughput is a big factor. A Typical SSD isn't "just as good" its not nearly good enough. And no you couldn't lol a raid 50 array with a decent raid card would cost about $600+ the amount of ssds to do that. A simple raid1 NVMe setup costs about $300 USD today.

RAID 50 needs 8 disks; $70 dollar ssds (120GB volume); $560 JUST ON SSDS ALONE for a disk volume of about 720GB with a fault tolorance of 1 drive... For THE ABSOLUTE LOW PRICE OF $999.99 USD.

Do some research.

2 of those in raid 1 is $650 USD. Buy in bulk your prices go down. Lower chance of fault as there are LESS PARTS.

Better stability, you don't understand simple concepts of throughput you need to really do some research here before posting trash on a thread.

Have a good day,
Rexs123

 

[rexs123]

As I have said, the RAID 50 is to demonstrate my point. Realistically, it would make more logical sense to probably go with a RAID 10 setup, which has a higher fault Tolerance then RAID 1.

I'm not arguing with you. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, and just to clear something up, RAID 50 actually requires 6 drives. It also has a fault tolerance of 4 drives. Nice system administrator :tup:

Stay in your developer area and ill stay in my area.

A decent raid 50 setup would be 8 drives. And You said raid 50 not raid10. Raid10 would be the ideal and more logical setup in any world. But you didn't say that. You said raid 50. A stable raid 50 setup is 8 drives, a poor one is 6. But my point stands that costs more than a single or even RAID1 NVMe Setup.

To the inital point you made that NVMe has no impact on performance why do you use SSDs then? Might as well go back to using 7200 RPM hard drives huh? Cost per dollar level of performance.

The market switched from standard mechanical to Solid state drives of either NAND Flash or NVME because of the shear performance they can provide. I.e 300MBps reads and writes. That had an impact on the average Minecraft server, who are you to judge and say using NVMe SSDs are cost ineffective? Because you don't have them at your provider doesn't make them bad, makes you bad. Standup for yourself and your company stop making inaccurate claims to bring down other companies.


Just so you know, I started with System administration and have been doing it for the last 9~ or so years.

Simply put you're wrong but too much of a sore loser to admit it.

V/r,
Rexs123

 

[rexs123]

I said the specific workload would not benefit from it. I said the difference would be there but it's not noticeable because minecraft doesn't benefit from it.

View attachment 118402

Its noticeable in a shared environment. You have more throughput and input. Its less of a bottleneck like regular magnetic hard drives a were before SSDs initally came to the market.

We're actually upgrading to NVMe drives soon. I never said NVMe drives were bad, I just said for this specific workload it's not really cost effective against alternative options including the setup I said before.

I'm sorry but thats fucking amusing as.

V/r,
Rexs123

 

[star_biker]

These prices are getting to low honestly and I don’t go for the cheap ones because they don’t have good quality, everyone is saying how good all these cheap hosts are and while atleast 1 is, it should be higher and should not take these hosts literally years to make profit. The best hosts are hosts that are staying high on prices because they can afford better hardware, better support, etc. BakeMyServer & Sparked Host LLC & ExcaliburNode Are the 3 best hosts in my opinion, there not lowering prices and I currently use BakeMyServer and the owner is very dedicated and servers are fast and there not under charging, SparkedHost has an owner that talks with staff all the time and makes sure his business runs smoothly and NetherHost has a dedicated owner with pretty good support, all these 3 hosts go for prices under $2.50/GB for Budget which they should be charging more because honestly there amazing Hosting Companies, we need to get the price back up to the normal stage of like $3/GB Lowest

 

[peeVpee]

These prices are getting to low honestly and I don’t go for the cheap ones because they don’t have good quality, everyone is saying how good all these cheap hosts are and while atleast 1 is, it should be higher and should not take these hosts literally years to make profit. The best hosts are hosts that are staying high on prices because they can afford better hardware, better support, etc. BakeMyServer & Sparked Host LLC & ExcaliburNode Are the 3 best hosts in my opinion, there not lowering prices and I currently use BakeMyServer and the owner is very dedicated and servers are fast and there not under charging, SparkedHost has an owner that talks with staff all the time and makes sure his business runs smoothly and NetherHost has a dedicated owner with pretty good support, all these 3 hosts go for prices under $2.50/GB for Budget which they should be charging more because honestly there amazing Hosting Companies, we need to get the price back up to the normal stage of like $3/GB Lowest

Understandable, But the thing is, hosting providers don't cut quality to lower prices, they mostly cut not paying support staff, and other stuff, as example, some host you can get better quality at $0.50/GB then some at $2/GB, but of course, the $2/GB host probably pays support staff, etc.